Sunday, October 31, 2010

My 2 disc DVD called, "Are Vaccines Safe?" was made to answer the most common questions pertaining to vaccines. It is scientifically documented and referenced.

It is available at

Childhoodshots.com

I will be changing to a new email service called

IContact. Please be sure to share with your facebook friends and other social media so that we can reach more families about the toxic childhood vaccines.

Mary Tocco is an International Speaker and has been educating parents for over 16 years on the dangers and health options to vaccines. She is now booking 2011 and her presentation qualifies for continuing education credits. To invite Mary to your next conference or health meeting, please visit her website or call

231-642-7984.

Dear Friend and Supporter,

The next several newsletters will be dedicated to addressing the misconceptions around vaccines. People choose to vaccinate for many reasons and I want to address those reasons which I believe are based on false and misleading information. This is a global problem and a whole generation of children's lives are at stake. I encourage you to share my FREE

email newsletter with those you know. If we want change in the world, we must become the change we wish to see and share our vision with those we love.

God Bless America,

Mary Tocco

Precious Health Campaign

Vaccine Myth #1

Vaccines Protect and encourage health.

I am always disturbed when I hear the CDC, FDA, Institute of Medicine or the American Academy of Pediatrics making the claim that, "Vaccines have a proven track record of protection against illnesses," and recommend them for every child in America.

Consider our current understanding of the immune system reaction when we inject a vaccine:

The vaccine theory is based on our knowledge of the immune system over eighty years ago. We now know that when we vaccinate, we stimulate the wrong arm of the immune system. The immune system is made of two separate compartments. The Th1 arm is for acute reaction to infectious illnesses and is designed to identify, contain and eliminate through all of the elimination pathways. The Th2 arm is where we developed long-term immunity over time with multiple exposures to normal infectious illnesses. The natural method of exposure is through the mouth, nose, ears and lungs. When we bypass these ports-of-entry by injection, we cause a completely different immune reaction, stimulating the Th2 arm of the immune system. The "vaccine theory" is not valid according the latest scientific understanding of immunity and results in autoimmune illnesses and allergies. The mechanism of injury is very complicated but we are learning more all the time. Here is one possible explanation. By nature, blood has a negative (-) charge and this allows things in the blood to be carried in suspension. When we inject vaccines containing aluminum, which is a positive (+) charge, we change the charge in the blood causing things to stick or clump together. This process was identified in the 1940's as "blood sludging" described by Dr. Karl Landsteiner and Dr. Melvin Kindsley. We also know that the fighting white blood cells, rushing to the site, (immune reaction) clump and result in a Stage 3 immune reaction. This can then lead to microvascular strokes in the end vascular territories (small cappilaries) in all the organs in the body. This explains why the children of this country are suffering with multiple health problems like asthma, food allergies, autism, learning problems, emotional anad mental problems and diabetes.

Most of the doctors who promote vaccines are not aware of this mechanism of injury. They will give 6-13 vaccines in one visit and send the child home with no follow-up. When parents see adverse reactions, they are dismissed as normal or not related to the vaccines. They have no clue how aluminum and other ingredients react in the body. They trust the vaccine manufactures who develop vaccines based on an out-of-date scientifically wrong theory.

American children get up to three (3) times more vaccines than any other country... why are our children so sick? American children take more medications than any other country globally. Our SIDS rates are shameful, our families are falling apart just trying to manage. Our country is suffering because of the "Sickness" model of healthcare.

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was implemented in 1991 and only 10% of all vaccine injuries get reported. Since then, they have paid out over 1.2 Billion in damages. The government protects the vaccine manufactures form all liability because they were getting sued due to injuries. If vaccines were safe, this would not be necessary. The government often seals the court records from the unsuspecting public.

Unlike other countries, the U.S. adds more vaccines to the already burdened schedule without any real consideration of how this will affect the babies long-term.

The government refuses to study the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. An Independent study conducted by the University of Pittsburg, Thoughtful House and Dr. Andrew Wakefield comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated infant primates (monkeys) showed that within 3 days after getting the birth Merck Hepatitis B vaccine, the vaccinated monkeys show developmental delays critical to their survival. The unvaccinated developed normal. They released the first of eleven papers comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys that they studied for six years.

I encourage you to share these vaccine concerns with your child's pediatrician and demand answers. I also recommend that you get fully informed before allowing your child or yourself to get any vaccines. This is the most important health care decision you will make for your family.

The next Vaccine Newsletter will come to you from another email service called IContact. I will address the lack of vaccine effecacy...do they even work to protect?

Blessings to all,

Mary Tocco

Mary Toccoo is an Independent Vaccine Researcher for over 30 years, public speaker and mother of 5 healthy unvaccinated children.

I USUALLY DONT POST EMAIL BUT THIS IS SIGNIFICANT...AND STRAIGHT FROM THE REFERENCE!

My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an “alternative option” to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: “We got an opt-out!” and also reported the “opt-out” into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this “incident” – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

“Am I under arrest?” I asked.

“No, he just needs to ask you some more questions.”

“But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?”

“We just need to hold you here so he can…”

“Hold me in what capacity?” I insisted.

“Detain you while we…”

Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

“Do you want them to board your plane?” he asked.

“No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.”

“Yeah, I know,” he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, “But somebody’s already taken those away.”

“Maybe they have,” I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

His reply: “That’s irrelevant.”

It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

“I need to get your information for my report,” he demanded.

“The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him.”

“No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…”

“Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better,” he barked.

“Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?”

“I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility.”

“Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.”

Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative “option” to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d “had words” with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been “any exchange of words.” I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today, 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.

Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in many ways a man ahead of his time, and most certainly controversial. He was attacked by the medical establishment for connecting diet with disease and mental health in his 1917 book Dietetics. Dr. Clymer received his medical degree in 1902 from the College of Medicine and Surgery in Chicago and began practicing Osteopathy. Accusations of fraud surround Dr. Clymer's career, including this 1923 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association which claims that, "Our records fail to show that this man was ever regularly graduated by any reputable medical college." What Clymer had to say more than likely had something to do with the denouncement that he received from the medical establishment.

Though Dr. Clymer may be surrounded with controversy, his 1958 book Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason exposes toxic food additives and fluoride with documentation - the majority of which are mainstream scientific studies - that can be verified many times over. What makes this book unique is the fact that Dr. Clymer was one of the first to point out that statements by the elite indicated that these toxins were to be deliberately released "...for the mental deterioration and moral debasement of the mass..."

The book is appropriately subtitled; "Food and Liquids Used as a Medium in Deliberately and Carefully Planned Methods Developed by the Vicious Element of Humanity, for the Mental Deterioration and Moral Debasement of the Mass, as a Means Toward Their Enslavement."

Dr. Clymer introduces readers with a stark warning for the future, writing, "Imagine yourself if you can, becoming conscious that you are gradually losing your manhood; that your mind is rapidly deteriorating so that you are no longer capable of thinking clearly; unable to plan your future actions. Your resistance is becoming so weakened that you are no longer master of yourself. In short, you are rapidly developing into a moron, a robot, a zombie, readily subject to the dictates of others..."

Bertrand Russell's 1953 book The Impact of Science on Society is cited by Clymer as one example of the elite's desire to dominate the masses. Russell stated that under scientific tyranny, "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

Diethylstilbestrol - Endocrine Disruption

Dr. Clymer identified the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol - developed in 1938 - as a means to achieve the aims of the elite. Clymer explains that some of the toxic additives discussed in the book may not have been employed for the express purpose outlined by the elite, but "...they served their purpose admirably..." Dr. Clymer elaborates,

"The employment of Stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer - something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind."

Because Stilbestrol is a synthetic chemical, "...the natural protective activity of the bodily organs are ineffective in prohibiting harmful results. Natural Estrogen, on the other hand, is decomposed, and any of its possible harmful effects may be more or less made ineffective," writes Dr. Clymer. Stilbestrol was used as a treatment for various types of cancer and menopausal symptoms, but as Dr. Clymer states, "Physicians versed in the use of Endocrines agree generally that Stilbestrol is a dangerous drug in all except experienced hands."

Dr. E. Malcolm Stokes, in an article published in the Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, September 1948, wrote: "Single large doses of [natural] estrogen substances are quickly excreted... long continued, repeated administration in relatively small doses [as in daily consumption of meats permeated with stilbestrol] may intensify tissue response to the hormone."

Dr. Clymer warns that such chemicals are to feminize men,

"Every vigilant human being should be concerned with several important factors involved: The methods or means by which it is possible to change man's characteristics as easily as the animal's. Man is a warrior by nature, the protector of his family, and his own rights and privileges; an individual, a free man... A being who has wrought great things and who, if not interfered with, will do even greater things. This being is to be turned into a lesser female; unable, even unwilling, to defend himself, much less his family or country; becoming a slave..."

Dr. Clymer's concerns over Stilbestrol have been vindicated over time, as the chemical has been phased out of use as a growth hormone in the late 1970's due to concerns over cancer. Additionally, in 1971 the FDA advised physicians to stop prescribing Stilbestrol to pregnant women due to high cancer risk. The drug is no longer being manufactured as of 1997.

Flashforward - Bisphenol A

Today there are continuing concerns as substantial levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) have been found in a large percentage of the western world's population. Like Diethylstilbestrol, BPA is a synthetic estrogen with similar to identical effects on the human body. BPA is perhaps a much larger threat due to the fact that unlike Stilbestrol - which was primarily consumed in meats - it is found in many household products, including the food we eat. A recent study from the Canadian Health Measures Survey found that over 90% of Canadians have detectable concentrations of BPA in their urine. Studies conducted by the CDC found Bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994 and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04. Other studies have shown that Bisphenol A causes feminization of males and reduced sperm count.

As Dr. Frederick vom Saal states in this local Fox News report, levels of BPA below a trillionth of a gram have been found to alter cell function and growth. Additionally, BPA was found to feed cancer cell growth and impact the reproductive system of rats.

Fluoride

Yet another danger to human health and well being identified by Dr. Clymer is Sodium Fluoride. Fluoride, we are told, is placed in the water supply to help protect our teeth from decay. Today some are proposing that fluoride and other forms of mass medication will serve as a means of "Cognitive Enhancement." In his expose of fluoride, Dr. Clymer quotes Rene M. Vale, a former Communist and party worker in her book Red Court, published in 1952. She writes,

"In regions of the country where resistance was most apt to develop we saw to it that virus diseases struck, and when antibiotics threatened our program, we devised other means of vitiating the populace. Fluoridation of drinking water was found to be about the most successful..."

Dr. Charles E. Perkins, who Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in personal contact with, was, "... sent by the United States Government to help take charge of the I. G. Farben chemical plants in Germany at the end of the second world war. What follows are quotations from a letter which Mr. Perkins wrote to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated October 2, 1954."

Mr. Perkins letter states,

"The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population of whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women and so on. In this scheme of mass control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"We are told by the ideologists who are advocating the fluorination of water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the prominence of those who are responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.

"However - and I want to make this very definite and very positive - the real reason behind fluorination is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time..."

Dr. Clymer additionally cites a 1956 letter written by the then New York Water Commissioner Arthur C. Ford (available in full here). In the letter, Ford speaks out openly against fluorides as "...extremely toxic substances..." Ford writes,

"We are aware that the fluorides are extremely toxic substances, and evidence exists to show that even at the recommended level of one part per million of fluoride in drinking water, people in fluoridated communities have been harmed.

We know of reputable, independent medical authorities throughout the United States and in the local area who have found evidence of fluoride damage to persons living in fluoridated communities. These medical authorities disagree with the fluoride hypothesis, and they have raised grave questions with respect to the safety of the procedure for an entire population which includes the young, the old, the susceptible and the infirm as well as the healthy.

Fluoride, besides being a toxic substance, is not all excreted when taken into the system, a significant percentage remaining cumulatively. Fluoridation of the drinking water at any level of concentration is a very indiscriminate procedure, since children drink widely varying amounts of water..."

Australian television recently reported on fluoride's harmful impact on human health and efforts to expand water fluoridation on the continent.

As sperm counts continue to fall world-wide and GMO crops escape into the environment, exposure to untold numbers of environmental toxins like BPA is a continuing threat. In the United States, several EPA scientists have denounced fluoridation, calling for a national moratorium on the fluoridation of water supplies. Citizens in Wichita Kansas are becoming active in raising awareness of fluoride, drawing attacks from the local media. Awareness of these issues is essential not just for those living today, but for future generations. Open admissions of the intent to chemically alter humanity should leave us with nothing but a sense of duty to warn others of the grave threat that we face.

The Age of Treason: 1958 Book Exposes Chemical Attack on Humanity

Old-Thinker News
August 19, 2010

By Daniel Taylor

Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in many ways a man ahead of his time, and most certainly controversial. He was attacked by the medical establishment for connecting diet with disease and mental health in his 1917 book Dietetics. Dr. Clymer received his medical degree in 1902 from the College of Medicine and Surgery in Chicago and began practicing Osteopathy. Accusations of fraud surround Dr. Clymer's career, including this 1923 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association which claims that, "Our records fail to show that this man was ever regularly graduated by any reputable medical college." What Clymer had to say more than likely had something to do with the denouncement that he received from the medical establishment.

Though Dr. Clymer may be surrounded with controversy, his 1958 book Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason exposes toxic food additives and fluoride with documentation - the majority of which are mainstream scientific studies - that can be verified many times over. What makes this book unique is the fact that Dr. Clymer was one of the first to point out that statements by the elite indicated that these toxins were to be deliberately released "...for the mental deterioration and moral debasement of the mass..."

The book is appropriately subtitled; "Food and Liquids Used as a Medium in Deliberately and Carefully Planned Methods Developed by the Vicious Element of Humanity, for the Mental Deterioration and Moral Debasement of the Mass, as a Means Toward Their Enslavement."

Dr. Clymer introduces readers with a stark warning for the future, writing, "Imagine yourself if you can, becoming conscious that you are gradually losing your manhood; that your mind is rapidly deteriorating so that you are no longer capable of thinking clearly; unable to plan your future actions. Your resistance is becoming so weakened that you are no longer master of yourself. In short, you are rapidly developing into a moron, a robot, a zombie, readily subject to the dictates of others..."

Bertrand Russell's 1953 book The Impact of Science on Society is cited by Clymer as one example of the elite's desire to dominate the masses. Russell stated that under scientific tyranny, "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

Diethylstilbestrol - Endocrine Disruption

Dr. Clymer identified the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol - developed in 1938 - as a means to achieve the aims of the elite. Clymer explains that some of the toxic additives discussed in the book may not have been employed for the express purpose outlined by the elite, but "...they served their purpose admirably..." Dr. Clymer elaborates,

"The employment of Stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer - something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind."

Because Stilbestrol is a synthetic chemical, "...the natural protective activity of the bodily organs are ineffective in prohibiting harmful results. Natural Estrogen, on the other hand, is decomposed, and any of its possible harmful effects may be more or less made ineffective," writes Dr. Clymer. Stilbestrol was used as a treatment for various types of cancer and menopausal symptoms, but as Dr. Clymer states, "Physicians versed in the use of Endocrines agree generally that Stilbestrol is a dangerous drug in all except experienced hands."

Dr. E. Malcolm Stokes, in an article published in the Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, September 1948, wrote: "Single large doses of [natural] estrogen substances are quickly excreted... long continued, repeated administration in relatively small doses [as in daily consumption of meats permeated with stilbestrol] may intensify tissue response to the hormone."

Dr. Clymer warns that such chemicals are to feminize men,

"Every vigilant human being should be concerned with several important factors involved: The methods or means by which it is possible to change man's characteristics as easily as the animal's. Man is a warrior by nature, the protector of his family, and his own rights and privileges; an individual, a free man... A being who has wrought great things and who, if not interfered with, will do even greater things. This being is to be turned into a lesser female; unable, even unwilling, to defend himself, much less his family or country; becoming a slave..."

Dr. Clymer's concerns over Stilbestrol have been vindicated over time, as the chemical has been phased out of use as a growth hormone in the late 1970's due to concerns over cancer. Additionally, in 1971 the FDA advised physicians to stop prescribing Stilbestrol to pregnant women due to high cancer risk. The drug is no longer being manufactured as of 1997.

Flashforward - Bisphenol A

Today there are continuing concerns as substantial levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) have been found in a large percentage of the western world's population. Like Diethylstilbestrol, BPA is a synthetic estrogen with similar to identical effects on the human body. BPA is perhaps a much larger threat due to the fact that unlike Stilbestrol - which was primarily consumed in meats - it is found in many household products, including the food we eat. A recent study from the Canadian Health Measures Survey found that over 90% of Canadians have detectable concentrations of BPA in their urine. Studies conducted by the CDC found Bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994 and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04. Other studies have shown that Bisphenol A causes feminization of males and reduced sperm count.

As Dr. Frederick vom Saal states in this local Fox News report, levels of BPA below a trillionth of a gram have been found to alter cell function and growth. Additionally, BPA was found to feed cancer cell growth and impact the reproductive system of rats.

Fluoride

Yet another danger to human health and well being identified by Dr. Clymer is Sodium Fluoride. Fluoride, we are told, is placed in the water supply to help protect our teeth from decay. Today some are proposing that fluoride and other forms of mass medication will serve as a means of "Cognitive Enhancement." In his expose of fluoride, Dr. Clymer quotes Rene M. Vale, a former Communist and party worker in her book Red Court, published in 1952. She writes,

"In regions of the country where resistance was most apt to develop we saw to it that virus diseases struck, and when antibiotics threatened our program, we devised other means of vitiating the populace. Fluoridation of drinking water was found to be about the most successful..."

Dr. Charles E. Perkins, who Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in personal contact with, was, "... sent by the United States Government to help take charge of the I. G. Farben chemical plants in Germany at the end of the second world war. What follows are quotations from a letter which Mr. Perkins wrote to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated October 2, 1954."

Mr. Perkins letter states,

"The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population of whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women and so on. In this scheme of mass control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"We are told by the ideologists who are advocating the fluorination of water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the prominence of those who are responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.

"However - and I want to make this very definite and very positive - the real reason behind fluorination is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time..."

Dr. Clymer additionally cites a 1956 letter written by the then New York Water Commissioner Arthur C. Ford (available in full here). In the letter, Ford speaks out openly against fluorides as "...extremely toxic substances..." Ford writes,

"We are aware that the fluorides are extremely toxic substances, and evidence exists to show that even at the recommended level of one part per million of fluoride in drinking water, people in fluoridated communities have been harmed.

We know of reputable, independent medical authorities throughout the United States and in the local area who have found evidence of fluoride damage to persons living in fluoridated communities. These medical authorities disagree with the fluoride hypothesis, and they have raised grave questions with respect to the safety of the procedure for an entire population which includes the young, the old, the susceptible and the infirm as well as the healthy.

Fluoride, besides being a toxic substance, is not all excreted when taken into the system, a significant percentage remaining cumulatively. Fluoridation of the drinking water at any level of concentration is a very indiscriminate procedure, since children drink widely varying amounts of water..."

Australian television recently reported on fluoride's harmful impact on human health and efforts to expand water fluoridation on the continent.

As sperm counts continue to fall world-wide and GMO crops escape into the environment, exposure to untold numbers of environmental toxins like BPA is a continuing threat. In the United States, several EPA scientists have denounced fluoridation, calling for a national moratorium on the fluoridation of water supplies. Citizens in Wichita Kansas are becoming active in raising awareness of fluoride, drawing attacks from the local media. Awareness of these issues is essential not just for those living today, but for future generations. Open admissions of the intent to chemically alter humanity should leave us with nothing but a sense of duty to warn others of the grave threat that we face.

The Age of Treason: 1958 Book Exposes Chemical Attack on Humanity

Old-Thinker News
August 19, 2010

By Daniel Taylor

Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in many ways a man ahead of his time, and most certainly controversial. He was attacked by the medical establishment for connecting diet with disease and mental health in his 1917 book Dietetics. Dr. Clymer received his medical degree in 1902 from the College of Medicine and Surgery in Chicago and began practicing Osteopathy. Accusations of fraud surround Dr. Clymer's career, including this 1923 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association which claims that, "Our records fail to show that this man was ever regularly graduated by any reputable medical college." What Clymer had to say more than likely had something to do with the denouncement that he received from the medical establishment.

Though Dr. Clymer may be surrounded with controversy, his 1958 book Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason exposes toxic food additives and fluoride with documentation - the majority of which are mainstream scientific studies - that can be verified many times over. What makes this book unique is the fact that Dr. Clymer was one of the first to point out that statements by the elite indicated that these toxins were to be deliberately released "...for the mental deterioration and moral debasement of the mass..."

The book is appropriately subtitled; "Food and Liquids Used as a Medium in Deliberately and Carefully Planned Methods Developed by the Vicious Element of Humanity, for the Mental Deterioration and Moral Debasement of the Mass, as a Means Toward Their Enslavement."

Dr. Clymer introduces readers with a stark warning for the future, writing, "Imagine yourself if you can, becoming conscious that you are gradually losing your manhood; that your mind is rapidly deteriorating so that you are no longer capable of thinking clearly; unable to plan your future actions. Your resistance is becoming so weakened that you are no longer master of yourself. In short, you are rapidly developing into a moron, a robot, a zombie, readily subject to the dictates of others..."

Bertrand Russell's 1953 book The Impact of Science on Society is cited by Clymer as one example of the elite's desire to dominate the masses. Russell stated that under scientific tyranny, "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

Diethylstilbestrol - Endocrine Disruption

Dr. Clymer identified the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol - developed in 1938 - as a means to achieve the aims of the elite. Clymer explains that some of the toxic additives discussed in the book may not have been employed for the express purpose outlined by the elite, but "...they served their purpose admirably..." Dr. Clymer elaborates,

"The employment of Stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer - something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind."

Because Stilbestrol is a synthetic chemical, "...the natural protective activity of the bodily organs are ineffective in prohibiting harmful results. Natural Estrogen, on the other hand, is decomposed, and any of its possible harmful effects may be more or less made ineffective," writes Dr. Clymer. Stilbestrol was used as a treatment for various types of cancer and menopausal symptoms, but as Dr. Clymer states, "Physicians versed in the use of Endocrines agree generally that Stilbestrol is a dangerous drug in all except experienced hands."

Dr. E. Malcolm Stokes, in an article published in the Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, September 1948, wrote: "Single large doses of [natural] estrogen substances are quickly excreted... long continued, repeated administration in relatively small doses [as in daily consumption of meats permeated with stilbestrol] may intensify tissue response to the hormone."

Dr. Clymer warns that such chemicals are to feminize men,

"Every vigilant human being should be concerned with several important factors involved: The methods or means by which it is possible to change man's characteristics as easily as the animal's. Man is a warrior by nature, the protector of his family, and his own rights and privileges; an individual, a free man... A being who has wrought great things and who, if not interfered with, will do even greater things. This being is to be turned into a lesser female; unable, even unwilling, to defend himself, much less his family or country; becoming a slave..."

Dr. Clymer's concerns over Stilbestrol have been vindicated over time, as the chemical has been phased out of use as a growth hormone in the late 1970's due to concerns over cancer. Additionally, in 1971 the FDA advised physicians to stop prescribing Stilbestrol to pregnant women due to high cancer risk. The drug is no longer being manufactured as of 1997.

Flashforward - Bisphenol A

Today there are continuing concerns as substantial levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) have been found in a large percentage of the western world's population. Like Diethylstilbestrol, BPA is a synthetic estrogen with similar to identical effects on the human body. BPA is perhaps a much larger threat due to the fact that unlike Stilbestrol - which was primarily consumed in meats - it is found in many household products, including the food we eat. A recent study from the Canadian Health Measures Survey found that over 90% of Canadians have detectable concentrations of BPA in their urine. Studies conducted by the CDC found Bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994 and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04. Other studies have shown that Bisphenol A causes feminization of males and reduced sperm count.

As Dr. Frederick vom Saal states in this local Fox News report, levels of BPA below a trillionth of a gram have been found to alter cell function and growth. Additionally, BPA was found to feed cancer cell growth and impact the reproductive system of rats.

Fluoride

Yet another danger to human health and well being identified by Dr. Clymer is Sodium Fluoride. Fluoride, we are told, is placed in the water supply to help protect our teeth from decay. Today some are proposing that fluoride and other forms of mass medication will serve as a means of "Cognitive Enhancement." In his expose of fluoride, Dr. Clymer quotes Rene M. Vale, a former Communist and party worker in her book Red Court, published in 1952. She writes,

"In regions of the country where resistance was most apt to develop we saw to it that virus diseases struck, and when antibiotics threatened our program, we devised other means of vitiating the populace. Fluoridation of drinking water was found to be about the most successful..."

Dr. Charles E. Perkins, who Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in personal contact with, was, "... sent by the United States Government to help take charge of the I. G. Farben chemical plants in Germany at the end of the second world war. What follows are quotations from a letter which Mr. Perkins wrote to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, dated October 2, 1954."

Mr. Perkins letter states,

"The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population of whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women and so on. In this scheme of mass control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"We are told by the ideologists who are advocating the fluorination of water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the prominence of those who are responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.

"However - and I want to make this very definite and very positive - the real reason behind fluorination is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time..."

Dr. Clymer additionally cites a 1956 letter written by the then New York Water Commissioner Arthur C. Ford (available in full here). In the letter, Ford speaks out openly against fluorides as "...extremely toxic substances..." Ford writes,

"We are aware that the fluorides are extremely toxic substances, and evidence exists to show that even at the recommended level of one part per million of fluoride in drinking water, people in fluoridated communities have been harmed.

We know of reputable, independent medical authorities throughout the United States and in the local area who have found evidence of fluoride damage to persons living in fluoridated communities. These medical authorities disagree with the fluoride hypothesis, and they have raised grave questions with respect to the safety of the procedure for an entire population which includes the young, the old, the susceptible and the infirm as well as the healthy.

Fluoride, besides being a toxic substance, is not all excreted when taken into the system, a significant percentage remaining cumulatively. Fluoridation of the drinking water at any level of concentration is a very indiscriminate procedure, since children drink widely varying amounts of water..."

Australian television recently reported on fluoride's harmful impact on human health and efforts to expand water fluoridation on the continent.

As sperm counts continue to fall world-wide and GMO crops escape into the environment, exposure to untold numbers of environmental toxins like BPA is a continuing threat. In the United States, several EPA scientists have denounced fluoridation, calling for a national moratorium on the fluoridation of water supplies. Citizens in Wichita Kansas are becoming active in raising awareness of fluoride, drawing attacks from the local media. Awareness of these issues is essential not just for those living today, but for future generations. Open admissions of the intent to chemically alter humanity should leave us with nothing but a sense of duty to warn others of the grave threat that we face.

I have a few questions which I hope to you will be able to help me God willing:

Firstly, My wife is currently breast feeding our first child who is a 5 months old girl and she has is currently suffering from a very, VERY common condition called eczema or atopy, which seems to be affecting almost all new born babies and toddlers in the UK. She also has asthma, which is getting worse. My wife has cut out everything from her diet that it is typically linked to the causes of atopy and she is currently taking vitamin tablets which the NHS in the UK give out free to all women who are pregnant and are breast feeding the content of each tablet is as follows:

Vitamin D 10 ug (400 IU)

Vitamin C 70 mg

Folic acid (Folacin) 400 ug

and we are currently giving our daughter 'Children Vitamin drops' which we instructed to give 5 drops and the 5 drops contain in total:

Vitamin A 233 ug (700 IU)

Vitamin C 20 mg

Vitamin D 7.5 ug (300 IU)

Now would this amount be enough for both mother and baby's Vitamin D level and could there be a link between the eczema/asthma and Vitamin D level?

Secondly, I myself suffer from eczema for a long time since about 2003 and I am 30 years old now. It has been on and off and it especially flares up in winter indifferent places on the body, I have generally managed to control it by watching what I eat especially at winter, now I have read quite a lot from your website and as far as i can understand that i should be taking 1000 IU of Vitamin D for every 25 pounds of body weight and as for the blood test I should take that after 8 weeks of starting the Vitamin D supplement.

Thank you for reading my rather long email but I am learning to avoid that winter fatigue and maybe find out if I can get rid of a few other problems for myself and loved ones.

Thank you

Geoffrey Bingham

Birmingham UK

Dear Geoffrey:

Eczema is a form of atopy, a disease characterized by a tendency to be “hyperallergic”. A patient with atopic allergies often has atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis since infancy and asthma as they grow older. Atopic eczema is an extremely itchy skin condition with a hallmark rash that can involve almost every region of the body. Crusty, scaly, flattened, reddened lesions of atopic eczema can appear almost everywhere, but are worse in certain areas or after exposure to certain irritants (e.g., allergenic soap, freshly cut lawns).

The single most important feature associated with atopic eczema lesions is that they are extremely itchy, and the itch can occur even before the lesions erupt on the skin and are visible. The itchiness often leads to secondary infections.

Atopy and asthma has a complicated relationship to vitamin D with some studies showing vitamin D, especially cod liver oil in infancy, making eczema worse in later life. However, one would be silly to stay vitamin D deficient, and all that entails, on the chance your eczema will not worsen. Furthermore, in my experience atopy, including asthma, will slowly improve with physiological doses of vitamin D. Like asthma, eczema can become life-threatening if infection occurs. Such infections are thought to be secondary to reductions in the skin of naturally occurring antibiotics, such as cathelicidin.

Recently, Dr. Tissa Hata and a group at UC San Diego conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated a remarkable seven fold increase in skin cathelicidin after adult eczema subjects were given 4,000 IU per day for 21 days.

Even more important, Dr. Urashima and colleagues at the Jikei University School of Medicine in Japan conducted a randomized placebo controlled trial of young teenagers and found that those with asthma were much less likely to have an attack if they were on vitamin D. Asthma attacks are not an uncommon cause of death among children. They also found that vitamin D significantly reduced the risk of influenza A, which can be much more severe in asthmatics.

Geoffrey, both you and your baby need to stop all vitamin A supplements, as they will interfere with the vitamin D, and begin taking vitamin D; your infant needs 1,000 IU/day and you need 5,000 IU per day. I wish I could tell you the eczema will rapidly disappear; it will not. However, over a period of several years I predict both the eczema and asthma will slowly improve. More importantly, both you and your infant will have a decreased likelihood of getting a secondary infection in both your skin and your lungs.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, “criminal”.

The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.

“If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.

During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”

“I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.

“People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.

“We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

Watch the video:

So, according to these two high priests of the scientific community, if you point out that the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped over a decade ago, as admitted recently by both Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal, as well as one of the most prominent AGW advocate groups in existence, The Royal Society, you should be locked up.

Presumably the two would want to see thousands and thousands of scientists have their rights taken away and their freedoms eliminated, for merely expressing disagreement or dissent with the much lauded, rarely present “consensus”.

After all, questioning hypotheses and presenting counter-evidence and alternative theories has nothing at all to do with science – no no no, that’s the behaviour of morally corrupt criminals.

According to a Denmark study which tracked over 2 million children born between 1955 and 1992, there exists a link between a first-time father’s age and his child’s chance of being diagnosed with schizophrenia. The findings, which were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, suggests that the older a first-time father is, the more likely it is that his child will develop schizophrenia.

Researchers have long known that the disease is caused by “disrupted brain development” and believe that it likely spawns from a combination environmental factors, such as poor nutrition during pregnancy, and genetic ones. Studies such as the Denmark one attempt to shed more light on the disorder.

As an older, first-time dad (my triplets were born weeks before I turned 39), I must say — I found the numbers to be staggering.

The first children born to fathers who were between the ages of 25 and 29 stood a .5% chance of being schizophrenic, as compared to the overall rate of 1%. That chance went up to .7% for the first children born to men in their 30s, 1.2% to men in their 40s, and 2% to men in their 50s.

Perhaps, researchers have speculated, older dads are more likely to have genetic abnormalities in their sperm. However, according to Dr. Liselotte Peterson, these new findings cast doubt on that. The Aarhus University professor points out that if such were the case, then each of an older dad’s children would be at risk as opposed to only his first child.

Instead, Peterson and her colleagues have another theory to help explain the phenomenon. In an email to Reuters Health, Peterson speculates that perhaps men who have a predisposition to schizophrenia, yet do not have the disorder, tend to have children later in life. That, of course, leads to the following question. Why do these men tend to have children later in life?

One possibility offered by Peterson is that they may have personality traits which makes it more difficult for them to find a partner. (Wonder if they had a bunch of older sisters?) Maybe I’m being overly sensitive, but that struck me as a bit harsh.

Not to mention the fact that I don’t follow the professor’s entire thread of logic on this one. It seems to me that Dr. Peterson’s “unlucky in love” theory has the exact same hole as the theory she claims the new study shot down. It doesn’t account for why there is NOT an increased rate of schizophrenia with second children.

Still, the numbers are sobering. And thanks to them, as well as to the entire study, I’ll likely over overanalyze each and every meltdown my triplets go on to have. (Not to mention my own.)

Pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow into detectable tumors - here's how to halt it today

Friday, October 29, 2010

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

Ads by Google

Mastectomy Types

Explore the different types of

mastectomies used for breast cancer

YourBreastOptions.com Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Have you been recently diagnosed?

Learn more about the BOREALIS study

www.treandaclinicalresearch.com Can You Stave Off Cancer?

Cut your cancer risk in half with

5 cancer fighters. Free report

NaturalHealthDossier.com/Cancer Breast Tumors

Learn About Diagnosis, Prevention &

Treatment Options From Our Experts.

breastcenter.UCLA.edu

Email this article to a friend Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter

699

Share

Get daily news updates from the Health Ranger

Your email privacy is 100% protected.

(NaturalNews) New research published in the journal Nature reveals that pancreatic cancer takes 20 years to grow to the point where it is diagnosed by conventional medical doctors. This was determined by sequencing the DNA of cancer tumor cells from deceased patients. Because cancer mutations occur in growing tumors at a known rate, scientists were able to map the timing of the development of full-blown pancreatic cancer tumors.

Here's what the scientists at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute found (and here's why this matters in a huge way to people interested in healthy living):

• It takes 11.7 years for one mutation in a pancreas cell to grow into a "mature" pancreatic tumor (which might show up on a medical scan).

• It takes another 6.8 years for the pancreatic tumor to spread and cause tumors to appear in other organs of the body.

In all, it takes about 20 years for a person to grow a cancer tumor and see it spread to the point where their doctor will diagnose them with pancreatic cancer.

In other words, by the time doctors diagnose you with cancer, you've already been growing it for two decades.

Here's why this matters

This is a huge story for five very important reasons:

Reason #1) The idea thrown around by cancer doctors that cancer is a "spontaneous disease" that strikes randomly and without warning is pure bunk. In order to "get" cancer, you actually have to GROW cancer for two decades! It doesn't just suddenly appear like magic.

Reason #2) When cancer doctors diagnose you with pancreatic cancer and say things like, "Good thing we caught it early!" they are full of bunk yet again. They didn't catch it early -- they caught it late! Almost 20 years too late.

Reason #3) If it takes 20 years to grow cancer tumors to the point where you get diagnosed with aggressive pancreatic cancer, then that means you have 20 years to change your lifestyle and stop the cancer!

That's the most important point of all, of course. In order to grow cancer tumors for 20 years, you have to feed the cancer for 20 years while keeping it alive. And how do you do that?

How to grow and feed a cancer tumor

First of all, to grow a cancer tumor, you need to eat lots of sugar. Liquid sugars are the best (soda, anyone?), but any form of refined sugar will do. You have to eat sugar daily if you really want to support cancer cell division and growth.

Next, you have to be vitamin D deficient for the entire 20 years. That's because vitamin D halts 77 percent of all cancers (including pancreatic cancer), and when combined with other nutrients like selenium, you can halt even more cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html)

If you combine vitamin D and selenium nutrition with other anti-cancer nutrients such as fresh vegetable juice (on a daily basis), omega-3 fatty acids, a wide variety of fresh fruits (including citrus and berries), and even red wine (rich with resveratrol), you will create an internal biological environment in which cancer tumors just can't grow at all. (http://www.naturalnews.com/023655_I...)

This is especially true if you pursue a more alkaline diet that's rich in vegetables and green foods rather than acidic substances such as sugar, fried foods and caffeine.

Combine all this with some regular exercise, good sleep, stress reduction habits and strict avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals, and you've got a recipe for blocking virtually all tumor growth in your body.

Cancer tumors simply cannot grow in an environment that's rich in plant-based nutrients and based on healthy, natural living.

So even if you have a wayward pancreatic cell that decides to mutate and try to become cancerous on its own, that cell will not have any long-term success in replicating inside your body because it's surrounded by healthy cells and bathed in anti-cancer nutrients carried to it each day in your blood!

Remember, your cells rely entirely on nutrients delivered by your blood, and if your blood is delivering anti-cancer nutrients each day, then "bad" cells will never be allowed to replicate and become cancer tumors.

Obviously, the composition of your blood is determined by what you eat. If you eat junk food, your blood will be junk blood, and it will deliver junk to your cells (cancer cells love junk!). If you eat healthy foods, you will have healthy blood, and cancer tumors will shrivel up and actually lose their blood supply then die. (Antiangiogenesis.) (http://www.naturalnews.com/001261_m...)

This is what this new research actually reveals: That pancreatic cancer takes two decades to develop inside your body, which naturally means you have two decades to change your health habits and stop growing cancer tumors in your body.

You may be growing cancer tumors right now... (but here's how to stop it)

If you've been pursuing a lifestyle of junk foods, processed foods, fried foods, excessive animal products and sun avoidance (you're not seriously still slapping sunscreen on your skin, are you?), then you are probably growing cancer tumors in your body right now. Almost as if you were trying to!

So you might be on year 10 of the 20-year cancer diagnosis plan. There's no way to know because cancer tumors don't show up diagnostic tests when they're only 10 years old (usually). But if you've been following a cancer-promoting lifestyle, you can rest assured you have micro tumors in your body that are just waiting for more sugar and less vitamin D in your blood in order to divide and grow even more.

So why not stop growing cancer tumors today? Start juicing! If you want to stop cancer in its tracks, buy yourself a high-end countertop juicing machine, go out and buy some organic produce on a regular basis, and start juicing away your cancer. (No kidding!)

Start consuming anti-cancer nutrients on a daily basis. Even a small amount of fresh kale, cabbage or broccoli juice (just one ounce) taken every day will have a powerful anti-cancer effect and may halt tumor growth in your body.

But just to be sure, blend and drink fresh citrus fruits, organic berries, and microalgae supplements on a regular basis. Read NaturalNews and learn about the latest breaking news on anti-cancer foods and supplements. Changing what you eat will dramatically alter what your body grows inside. Instead of growing cancer tumors, you can start growing healthy cells that will quickly overpower any diseased cells.

Steer clear of all synthetic chemicals

Of course, for all this to work, it is VITAL that you avoid all synthetic chemicals: Do not take pharmaceuticals; do not use conventional perfumes, skin lotions, shampoos or other personal care products; do not use conventional laundry detergents (they're filled with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals); do not use anti-bacterial soaps; do not cook on nonstick cookware; do not drink fluoride in your water... basically just get all the toxic chemicals out of your house and out of your life.

Keep reading NaturalNews if you want to learn more about how to do that. We cover these topics on a regular basis. Better yet, subscribe to our free email newsletter and we'll bring you these news headlines each day (the subscribe box is at the top left of this article).

The bottom line to all this is the GREAT NEWS that you don't have to grow cancer tumors anymore! You can simply decide to stop growing cancer by changing the biochemical environment in which your cells live. Change the environment and you change the results. It's a simple matter of cause and effect.

So remember: Cancer is not random, nor is it genetic. It doesn't appear spontaneously, and in the case of pancreatic cancer, it actually takes two decades to grow it to the point where it gets noticed by cancer doctors!

That means you've got 20 years to make a change in your life. Why not start right now? (If you haven't already...)

Fact: Pancreatic survival rates have not changed in the last 40 years. Do you know why? Because conventional medical doctors wait until you've been growing cancer for 20 years to tell you that you have cancer. (Seriously. And they think they're running the most "advanced" medical system in the world.)

Wouldn't it make more sense to teach patients how to prevent cancer two decades earlier and thereby avoid growing it in the first place?

Articles Related to This Article:

• The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine

• Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

• Healing Illness - A Natural Anti-Cancer Protocol

• New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

About the author: Mike Adams is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2010, Adams co-founded NaturalNews.TV, a natural health video sharing site that has now grown in popularity. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and martial arts training. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

Thursday, October 28, 2010

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men who are relatively older at their first child's birth may be more likely than younger first-time dads to have a child who eventually develops schizophrenia, hint results of a large Danish study.

Using data on more than 2 million people born in Denmark between 1955 and 1992, researchers found a link between first-time fathers' age and the odds of any of their children developing schizophrenia.

In contrast, the connection was not seen among fathers who were relatively older only when their second- or later-born child came into the world.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, add another layer to the relationship between parents' age and children's schizophrenia risk.

It's known that schizophrenia is a disorder of disrupted brain development, and researchers have long believed that it arises from a combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental factors -- with the suspects including viral infections or poor nutrition during pregnancy.

A number of studies have also shown a relationship between parents' age at the time of a child's birth and that child's risk of developing schizophrenia. However, most have suggested that the link to mothers' age is largely explained by fathers' age.

Researchers have speculated that the explanation might rest in the fact that older fathers are more likely than younger ones to have genetic abnormalities in their sperm, possibly including genetic abnormalities related to schizophrenia.

However, the new findings cast doubt on that theory, according to lead researcher Dr. Liselotte Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark.

If the theory were correct, then fathers' age at the birth of any child -- not just the first one -- should be related to schizophrenia risk.

Instead, Petersen and her colleagues say, the findings give support to another theory: that men who have a predisposition to schizophrenia, but do not themselves develop it, tend to have children later in life than other men.

However, the reasons for such "delayed fatherhood" remain unknown, Petersen told Reuters Health in an email.

One question, she said, is whether there could be factors -- genetic or environmental -- that both impair a man's fertility and contribute to schizophrenia risk in his children. Another possibility is that men predisposed to schizophrenia are more likely to have personality traits that affect their relationships and make it more difficult to find a partner.

The vast majority of children born to relatively older fathers will not develop schizophrenia, as the disorder is estimated to affect 1 percent of the population.

However, a better understanding of the relationship between paternal age and schizophrenia risk could help uncover some of the causes of the disorder, Petersen said.

For the current study, she and her colleagues used data from Denmark's national system of registers to track more than 2.2 million citizens born between 1955 and 1992. Between 1970 and 2007, just over 14,200 of those individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

(NaturalNews) You know all those thousands of clinical trials conducted over the last few decades comparing pharmaceuticals to placebo pills? Well, it turns out all those studies must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific. And why? Because the placebos used in the studies weren't really placebos at all, rendering the studies scientifically invalid.

This is the conclusion from researchers at the University of California who published their findings in the October issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. They reviewed 167 placebo-controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals in 2008 and 2009 and found that 92 percent of those trials never even described the ingredients of their placebo pills.

Why is this important? Because placebo pills are supposed to be inert. But nothing is inert, it turns out. Even so-called "sugar pills" contain sugar, obviously. And sugar isn't inert. If you're running a clinical trial on diabetics, testing the effectiveness of a diabetes drug versus a placebo then obviously your clinical trial is going to make the diabetes drug look better than placebo if you use sugar pills as your placebo.

Some placebo pills use olive oil which may actually improve heart health. Other placebo pills use partially-hydrogenated oils which harm heart health. Yet only 8 percent of clinical trials bothered to list the placebo ingredients at all!

Stay with me on this placebo issue... because it gets even more bizarre...

There are no FDA rules regarding placebos in clinical trials

It turns out there are absolutely no FDA rules regarding the choice or composition of placebos used in clinical trials. Technically, a clinical trial director could use eye of newt or lizard's legs as placebo and would not even be required to mention such nefarious details in the trial results. That would cause trouble, trouble, boil and bubble! (Shakespeare reference for all you literary fans...)

We already know that clinical trials are rife with fraud. Most of the clinical trials used by pharmaceutical companies to win FDA approval of their drugs, for example, are funded by pharmaceutical companies. And it is a verifiable fact that most clinical trials tend to find results that favor the financial interests of whatever organization paid for them. So what's to stop Big Pharma from scheming up the perfect placebo that would harm patients just enough to make their own drugs look good by comparison?

Fact: Placebos are usually provided by the very same company funding the clinical trial! Do you detect any room for fraud in this equation?

Placebo performance strongly influences whether drugs are approved by the FDA, by the way. As the key piece of information on its regulatory approval decisions, the FDA wants to know whether a drug works better than placebo. That's the primary requirement! If they work even 5% better than placebo, they are said to be "efficacious" (meaning they "work"). This is true even if the placebo was selected and used specifically to make the drug look good by comparison.

You see, if there are no regulations or rules regarding placebo, then none of the placebo-controlled clinical trials are scientifically valid.

It's amazing how medical scientists will get rough and tough when attacking homeopathy, touting how their own medicine is "based on the gold standard of scientific evidence!" and yet when it really comes down to it, their scientific evidence is just a jug of quackery mixed with a pinch of wishful thinking and a wisp of pseudoscientific gobbledygook, all framed in the language of scientism by members of the FDA who wouldn't recognize real science if they tripped and fell into a vat full of it.

Big Pharma and the FDA have based their entire system of scientific evidence on a placebo fraud! And if the placebo isn't a placebo, then the scientific evidence isn't scientific.

Oh, but wait. They'll call it science because they wish the placebo to be a placebo. Yep -- the clinical researchers are now psychics, mediums and fortune tellers who simply decree that little pill of olive oil to "be a placebo!" while waving their hands over it in a gesture borrowed from David Copperfield.

James Randi may have never seen a psychic transmute lead into gold, but he's no doubt seen doctors transmute biochemically active substances into totally inert materials merely by wishing them so! It's so amazing!

And this brings me to the really interesting "how-to" part of this article...

How to make your own placebo just like clinical researchers do

Are you wondering how to make your own FDA-approved, scientifically validated placebo? It's easier than you think.

Step 1 - Find something shaped like a pill. It could be a pill full of olive oil, white sugar, palm oil, fluoridated water, chalk dust, synthetic chemicals or just about anything you can imagine.

Step 2 - Close your eyes and get ready to concentrate.

Step 3 - This is the important part - Repeat out loud five times while turning counter-clockwise, "I am a scientific researcher practicing evidence-based medicine!" You must say this until you really, truly believe it. If you don't believe it strongly enough, the placebo effect will be ruined.

Step 4 - Thrust your palm in the direction of the placebo pills and shout, at the top of your voice, "You are now placebo!" You may feel a shiver of energy coursing through your body. That's the power of placebo reaching out to the pills.

The process is now complete. You may now use these placebo pills in any clinical trial and expect full approval of such use by your colleagues, famous medical journals and FDA regulators. (This is not a joke. This is the state of the art today in conventional medicine.)

Hope also has a huge role to place in all this. The more you hope your placebos are really placebos, the better results you'll get. In fact, in reporting on this whole fiasco, the lead researcher of the study uncovering all this, Dr Beatric Golomb, said, "We can only hope that this hasn't seriously systematically affected medical treatment."

But of course it has. (And by the way, no disrespect toward Dr Golomb. She deserves kudos for being willing to tackle this subject which will no doubt make her very unpopular among the cult of Scientism as practiced by conventional medical researchers today.)

How to improve your clinical trial results

For improved results, try to use the most harmful placebo substances you can. For example, in real clinical trials involving AIDS patients -- who tend to be lactose intolerant -- researchers have used pills made of, guess what? Lactose!

That's sort of like running a clinical trial on a cure for heroin addiction and using heroin as the placebo, isn't it? Gee, somehow our drug worked "better than placebo." Funny how that works, isn't it?

And if you still don't get the results you want, just start inventing your own data like other clinical trial researchers do. Remember Dr Scott Reuben? This highly-respected clinical trial researcher faked at least twenty-one clinical trials for Big Pharma (http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_S...). His fraudulent clinical trials are still being cited to sell prescription medications!

Heck, who needs placebo when you can just invent the data?

Come to think of it, who needs science when you can just use anything you want and call it placebo in the first place?

Conventional medicine operates clinical trials in the same way that banks and securities firms handle mortgage documents. They all just sort of make things up as they go along, committing felony crimes on a daily basis while hoping nobody notices. On that note, check out this amazing story by Greg Hunter called The Perfect No-Prosecution Crime (http://usawatchdog.com/the-perfect-...).

Where on the skeptics when it comes to Big Pharma science fraud?

Seriously, you just gotta love the state of medical science today. I've never watched a more hilarious group of nincompoops reassure each other that they're all so scientific while practicing the most quack-ridden chicanery imaginable. The stuff being pulled off today in the name of Big Pharma's clinical trials makes psychic detectives and tarot card readers look downright scientifically gifted by comparison.

It really makes you wonder about so-called "skeptics," doesn't it? If they're skeptical of homeopathy, tarot cards, psychic mediums and people who claim they can levitate, I can at least understand the urge to ask tough questions about all these things. I ask tough questions, too, especially when people tell me they've seen ghosts or spirits coming back from the dead or other unexplained phenomena. (And I've already publicly denounced so-called "psychic surgery" which it quite obviously little more than sleight-of-hand trickery combined with animal blood.)

But most conventional skeptics never step out of bounds of their "safety zone" of popular topics for which skepticism may be safely expressed. They won't dare ask skeptical questions about the quack science backing the pharmaceutical industry, for example. Nor will they ask tough questions about vaccines, or mammography, or chemotherapy. And you'd be hard pressed to find anything more steeped in outright fraudulent quackery than the pharmaceutical industry as operated today (and the cancer branch of it in particular).

That's why I'm skeptical about the skeptics. If a skeptic doesn't question the loosey goosey pseudoscience practiced by Big Pharma, then they really have no credibility as a skeptic. You can't be selectively skeptical about some things but then a fall-for-anything fool on other scams just because they're backed by drug companies.

But getting back to this study in particular...

Abstract of the study

Here's some of the text from the abstract of this study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (http://www.annals.org/content/153/8...)

What's in Placebos: Who Knows? Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Data Synthesis: Most studies did not disclose the composition of the study placebo. Disclosure was less common for pills than for injections and other treatments (8.2% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.002).

Limitation: Journals with high impact factors may not be representative.

Conclusion: Placebos were seldom described in randomized, controlled trials of pills or capsules. Because the nature of the placebo can influence trial outcomes, placebo formulation should be disclosed in reports of placebo-controlled trials.